We believe that the Reports of the Church Commissioners have been productive of nothing but astonishment and alarm among the friends and members of the establishment; and that the public are now fully awake to the necessity of opposing its unwarrantable and unjust propositions. We have on our table various pamphlets containing the observations of churchmen of high character, acknowledged learning, dignified station, and most conscientious attachment to the Church to which they belong : and it is to be observed that these observations are not only in themselves most worthy of attention for the soundness and solidity of their views, but that the language which they use is most strong and decisive, and indeed reaching to the very edge and limit, beyond which it would cease to be compatible with the respect due to the subject and the station of those on whom it animadverts, and altogether, such as seldom comes from the pens of ecclesiastics, on ecclesiastical questions. When persons of such temper, moderation, and knowledge, as the learned Master of the Temple, and the Canon of St. Paul's, and others, make use of language so significant and so strong, we may presume that the evils they deprecate, and the errors on which they animadvert, are of no trifling importance. Going with them, then, as we do, to the full extent of their well-founded complaints, we shall, in as brief a compass as we can, recapitulate the leading points, and we prefer making use of their language, as bearing an authority and commanding a respect, which we have no right to expect for our own. 1. The first cause of alarm that rises in the minds of all those who bind up their affections and interests with the welfare of our Church Establishment, is a too well-grounded conviction, that, for the first time since the days of the Restoration, the Church has a government to which it cannot look for fidelity or protection.* The great Lord Chatham once said, "The Church, God bless her, has but a pittance." Those who now stand in the place of that noble-minded and patriotic statesman, leaving out altogether the blessing on the Church, are endeavouring to deprive her of that pittance she still possessed. Lord Melbourne owned that the effect of the alterations in the Irish Church Establishment, as introduced by him, would be to weaken the Protestant interest; and Mr. Spring Rice, when he proposed his plan of making the bishops pensioners, by taking away their estates, and confiscating the property of the cathedrals, prefaced it by saying," that what he proposed was in no feeling of hostility to the Establishment:" a noble and honourable avowal indeed! so that the King, the Head of the Church, may yet congratulate himself that his ministers are not hostile to that Establishment which he has publicly sworn, and which he has privately promised, to defend. "That the Government," says the Quarterly Review, "has neither strength nor zeal to battle in defence of the Church,-that it will abandon even the appearance of defence, if the pressure from without becomes too strong, and that its theoretical principles, if carried consistently into practice, involve the destruction of the Church; all this is too manifest, and it must rouse suspicion and alarm in reference to every measure which they (i. e. the Government of the country) sanction."-Mark, was there ever a statement at once more true, and more afflicting than this. And now let us * "Now the King is in the hands of his ministers, his ministers in the hands of a majority of the House of Commons, and that majority in the hands of an Irish incendiary Romanist."-Quart. Rev. No. cxv. p. 228. follow out this statement into some of its degrading and mischievous details. 2. Let us speak of the Commission itself in the words of a most active, able, learned, and zealous Prelate; after stating that a commission, if such was necessary for regulating the revenues of the clergy, might have been renewed from time to time, he states: "But this is not the course which has been followed. A machinery of the most formidable and portentous nature has been created, threatening us with a series of changes in our ecclesiastical constitution, so often as the convenience of any Government, which (Government) may be dependant on the will and caprices of a faction hostile to the Church,* (i. e. which Government may owe its support to Dissenters,) shall dictate such changes. That I do not exaggerate the danger will, I think, be manifest on a very slight examination of this part of the Act. Instead of a Commission, there is created a perpetual Corporation to be called by the name of 'The Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England,' a denomination taken from the ill-omened precedent of a similar body corporate,-The Ecclesiastical Commissioners for Ireland, created three years ago by an Act of which the first Minister of the crown has recently admitted and proclaimed that no one in his senses can doubt that it was a discouragement of the Protestant cause in that unhappy country; but let this pass. Not only is a perpetual body corporate created for managing these affairs of the church,- - a matter of itself of fearful danger, as inviting to a perpetual and mischievous activity in managing, but the composition of this body proceeds on a principle (if a principle it may be called) never before witnessed in the 'construction of any corporation known to the laws of this land, save that disastrous precedent to which I have already referred. In short, the great majority of this (these) members of the body, more than three-fourths, are removeable at the pleasure of the Crown. Thus is the very end and object for which corporations are ordinarily created, permanence and independence, practically defeated. Three only of its members, the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, and the Bishop of London, hold their places for life; the re : * * * maining ten, two of them bishops, (the Bishops of Lincoln and Gloucester,) are removeable at pleasure by the king in council, in other words, by the ministers of the day. In the English body, there is a standing majority of ministers and lay nominees of ministers against the Episcopal Commissioners (two of whom are also nominees of ministers) in the proportion of eight to five. As some semblance of security against abuse, provision is made that the seal shall never be affixed to any instrument, unless in the presence of two of the Episcopal Commissioners: nor then, if both of these object, In every case, however, if a single bishop assents, though all the other four object, the act may be ratified. If, therefore, the Minister shall at any time be able to find, or make, a single bishop of the English bench subservient to his views, he has only to place him among the Commissioners, and the without direction of the powers of this body is at this Minister's absolute disposal. * * The Commissioners can recommend the seizure of all the lands and revenues of every See as it shall fall, making the successor of it a mere stipendiary, and what they recommend becomes the law of the land, when approved by his Majesty in Council; in other words-what the Minister of the day shall carry, his standing majority among the Commissioners becomes law, as soon as the same minister shall approve it, by those members of the Privy Council whom he shall himself select and summon to council for the purpose. A depository of power, a permanent and perpetual depository of power, is thus created and placed under the controul of the Minister of the day, to which all the con. cerns of the Church may gradually be drawn. In the fourth Report we see announced a vast enlargement of the operations of this body; and every passing year will probably be marked by some * There can be no doubt but that the present Administration is mainly supported in power by the Dissenters: nor is there any doubt that the Dissenters are most hostile to the Church; is not the Government therefore in a situation in which it cannot do justice to the Church and preserve its powers; and is not Mr. S. Rice's proposition on church-rates, a proof of this? what but the force of the Dissenting interest drove back Lord John Russell's proposition and advanced the other? We hope Archdeacon Bathurst has by this time had enough of his friends. fresh accessions, until the country be accustomed to see it invested with attributes compared to which the highest au thority over the Church, claimed by the Tudors or the Stuarts, will appear powerless and insignificant." We now turn to Mr. Benson's † views on the same subject: "It may excite some surprise that any set of individuals who were anxious for the stability and integrity of the Church should ever have thought of 'soliciting from the Legislature that permanent and extensive authority which is conferred upon the commissioners. By that Act, they obtain a perpetual succession,' and are empowered to purchase and hold all sorts of property for the purposes of the Act. The purposes for which this perpetuity and these privileges are granted, ought certainly to be both of a very innoxious and beneficial character, and ought to be proved to be indisputably and immediately necessary, as well as incapable of being carried into effect by any other means, in order to justify such a grant, which, to say the best of it, is not in exact harmony with the free and popular principles of our civil and ecclesiastical constitution. Four long Reports, full of the most intricate questions, and affecting every diocese, cathedral, and clergyman in the kingdom, have been, or will hereafter be, constituted the law of the land, most probably without any Parliamentary investigation or discussion as to the merits or bearings of the particular measures themselves. It will afterwards be left to the discretion of a few individuals to say how much or how little of these Reports shall be carried into effect. Who are these individuals?-Honourable men, no doubt. But some of them can have but little knowledge, and others but little time to bring to the consideration of the questions at issue; they must necessarily therefore devolve this legislative authority upon those still fewer, but more active individuals, who may choose, for whatever reason, to take upon them the labour and responsibility. say, my Lord, that by this act, the great body of the manifold schemes of the Commissioners are at once made law; and I speak it advisedly. For what effectual restraint is there in the required sanction of the King in Council? -The King in Council is, to all intents and purposes of practice, the King consenting by his ministers; and they are in a great measure committed upon this subject. The heads of the Government have already, as commissioners, agreed to the Report, and supported the Act, and unless roused to a different view of things from that which they have already taken, it is scarcely reasonable to expect that they will not carry into full effect the recommendations they have hitherto seemed to approve. The only thing that can be said is, that this required consent of the King, affords a sufficient respite to prevent despair. It is far tco feeble a barrier to inspire much hope of preventing any of the schemes of the Commissioners, however pernicious, if indeed they be in any instance pernicious, from becoming law. I must say, that in every case I think this wholesale method of legislation is to be deprecated. It is a time most full of fear for the liberties of the land, when the Parliament declines the duty of carefully canvassing every measure, and part of a measure, which affects public or private property, and eases itself of its legitimate burden, by delegating the power of dealing with the interests of the King's subjects, to a few selected Commissioners to whom it gives a perpetual existence, and over whose acts it gives up almost all subsequent controul. In the case of the Poor-law Commissioners, and the Church Commissioners, a precedent has been introduced, which, if vigorously acted upon, may place a much larger por tion of our rights and privileges and possessions under the management of a few powerful boards, than any wise and prudent men would approve." This surely is the language of a wise ported by other voices of similar power. "We cannot (says the author of an excellent article in the Quarterly Review on this subject) conclude without recording a protest against the greatest and most alarming evil of all: this is assuredly the existence of the Commission itself in its present form. Temporary and enlightened man, not unsup commissioners for particular purposes have not been uncommon, and the prolongation of the duties of the present body may be necessary now from the nature of the funds to be distributed. Nor is it necessary to suppose that any direct attempt against the liberties and inde v. Bishop of Exeter's Charge, pp. 20, 21. pendence of the Church of England has been planned by the Ministers of the Crown, whatever may have been contemplated by the sectarian members of the House of Commons; but, undoubtedly, a machine has been constructed, which, if permitted to establish itself, and proceed any further with its present operations, may, in a very few years, lay the Church prostrate at the feet of an Irish demagogue, or Socinian manufacturer, who may happen, for the curse of his country, to be thrust into power in the legislature. The Bishop of Exeter was the first to point out the magnitude of this danger; and we refer to his Lordship's last Charge for the best exhibition of its character. We are indeed in a great strait. have made the monarch, in his own person, the supreme ruler of the Churchand the monarch is now in the hands of a majority of the House of Commons-a majority no longer secured even as lukewarm nominal members of its religious communion and yet a body has been We established, which, with all its seeming precaution of oaths, and its conditions of co-operation, may soon be completely manageable by any Minister of the Crown, whoever he be. It is fixed on an independent basis-has its seals, its officers, its power of administering oaths, and examining witnesses, and has become, in fact, the depository of a very large portion of the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the King. It commences with proposing to cut down our cathedral institutions to such a point, that their longer existence will be impossible; to make a vital change in their patronage-to take into its hands a considerable portion of the episcopal revenues, and distribute them to the Bishops as their stipendiaries-to interfere with the parochial superintendence of the Bishops in their own diocesesand to receive, and distribute at will, a large portion of ecclesiastical revenue, which was never intended to be so distributed, least of all by such a body." Having thus seen the unconstitutional nature of this Commission, both as regards the duration of its existence, and the extent of its power, we come now to some more most objectionable and anomalous circumstances in it; and for this purpose we refer again to Mr. Benson's admirable Letter: t "After all, I fear my appeal to you must be altogether in vain: not because of your unwillingness to listen to the suggestions of others, or because of your determination, from a mistake between obstinacy and consistency, to persevere in any course you have begun; for I know no one more ready than yourself to revise your opinions, and reconsider the grounds on which they rest. But you do not hold now the same relative situation upon the Commission which you once enjoyed. When the Commission first was issued under the administration of Sir Robert Peel, you were selected, as others, to be a member, and with the same authority, and upon the same condition as others. The new Commission, instituted under the Act of Parliament, has altered all that, counting it perhaps among the evils it was called upon to rectify. With talents, experience, and judgment equal to those of any other bishop on the bench, you are made at all times removeable by his Majesty; that is, at the pleasure of his Majesty's ministers. This is a fate you share with many other excellent indi : viduals. The permanent commissioners, practically speaking, who remain, are the two Archbishops and the Bishop of London for the King's Ministers, the only other commissioners, are themselves an extremely changeable body, and also removeable from their situations, and consequently from the Commission, at the pleasure of the King. There is a reason why the Archbishops, for the time being, should always have a seat at the Board; but why any subordinate bishop, as the Bishop of London, should be permanently, and officially, and irremoveably a commissioner, whilst yourself, as Bishop of Lincoln, is a commissioner only at will, it is not easy to discover. Such however is the fact; and the difference is so marked and great, that henceforth the whole ecclesiastical power and responsibility of the Board must be ascribed to those three only who have been selected as official and permanent commissioners from the Church. The uncertain tenure of your situation must impose such fetters upon your free movements, and so injure the independence of your actions and the force of * The vigilance, zeal, and constitutional knowledge of the Bishop of Exeter, and his manly opposition to the truckling, compromising, and dangerous acts of the Ministry, have drawn down on him, as seen in a late debate, their bitter wrath and hatred. † Page 28. your opinions, as to detract most seriously from your authority in consultation, and your influence in carrying into execution your views. For commissioners removeable at all times, like the subordinate members of a ministry, may labour for their colleagues, and give them the benefit of their suggestions: but if once they se riously differ from them as to what should be done, there is only one honourable course for them to pursue :-they may remonstrate and resign. That honourable course, my Lord, I am sure will be yours, whenever you find yourself in this unhappy predicament." This passage is of importance, both in itself and as leading us direetly to a further view of the Commission, to which we are now coming. We have seen of what the body of this Commission is comprised, and we have seen in how sinall a part of that body is any active vitality existing: but what shall we say when we find from the following passage that there is but one limb, one member, which usurps all the life, engrosses all the action, and commands and governs the rest. "The lay commissioners (we use the words of the Rev. S. Smith) who are members of the Government, cannot and will not attend. The Archbishops of York and Canterbury are quiet and amiable men, going fast down in the vale of of life; some of the members of the Commission are expletives, some must be absent in their dioceses. The Bishop of London is passionately fond of labour; has certainly no aversion to power, is of quick temper, great ability, thoroughly versant in ecclesiastical law, and always in London. He will become the Commission, and when the Church of England is mentioned, it will only mean Charles James of London, who will enjoy a greater power than has ever been possessed by any churchman since the days of Laud, and will become the Church of England here upon earth. As for the Commission itself, there is scarcely any power which is not given to it. They may call for every paper in the world, and every human creature who possesses it, and do what they like to the one and to the other. It is hopeless to contend with such a body, and most painful to think that it has been established under a Whig Government. A commission of Tory churchmen, established for such purposes, should have been framed with the utmost jealousy, and with the most cautious circumscription of its powers, and with the most earnest wish for its extinction when the purposes of its creation are answered. The Government have done everything in their power to make it vexatious, omnipotent, and everlasting. This immense power flung into the hands of an individual, is one of the many foolish consequences which proceed from the centralization of the Bill, and the unwillingness to employ the local knowledge of the bishops in the process of annexing dignified to parochial preferment." It is quite clear that this is all clumsy enough in its design, and very improper in its execution. From this statement the whole active and real working of the Commission would be in the hands of the Bishop of London alone, and certainly not the bishop whom we should single out for the exercise of such a monopoly." But this is not all: "As the Reform was to comprehend every branch of churchmen, bishops, dignitaries and parochial clergymen, I cannot but think it would have been much more advisable to have added to the Com mission some members of the two lower orders of the clergy; they would have supplied that partial knowledge which appears in so many of the proceedings of the commissioners to be wanting; they would "If a clergyman has a living of £400 per annum, and a population of 2,000 souls, the bishop can compel him to keep a curate-in other words, he may take half his income and ruin him. I think I remember that the Bishop of London once attempted this before he was a commissioner, and was defeated. I had no manner of doubt that it would speedily become the law, after the Commission had begun to operate. The Bishop of London is said to have declared, after this trial, that if it was not Law, it should soon be Law!' and Law you will see it become. In fact he can slip into any ecclesiastical Act of Parliament anything he pleases," &c. The trial Mr. Smith alludes to, was that of the Hon. Mr. Capell, Rector of Watford. GENT. MAG. VOL. VII. 3 N |